The development of argumentation support systems for different types of groups and application areas has been receiving growing interest in the last twenty years. Such systems address the needs of a user to interpret and reason about knowledge during a discourse, and demonstrate diverse human and machine reasoning functionalities. However, methodologies to check whether the reasoning mechanisms of such systems adhere to broadly accepted argumentation theories are missing. Provision of such methodologies is of much value, especially in data intensive contexts. The approach described in this paper is a first step towards this direction. Specifically, we formally assess a specific argumentation support system, namely HERMES, against Dungs argumentation theory and prove its correctness as far as the acceptability of arguments is concerned.
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
Tel.: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300 email@example.com
(Corporate matters and books only) IOS Press c/o Accucoms US, Inc.
For North America Sales and Customer Service
West Point Commons
Lansdale PA 19446
Tel.: +1 866 855 8967
Fax: +1 215 660 5042 firstname.lastname@example.org